Read the forum code of contact
By: - 7th August 2003 at 10:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I've flown both and generally like Airbus too, But as many will know I have an affection for the 757. I've flown on a 757 four times and twice on an A321. I think the A321 flights were a bit more pleasant mainly because they were scheduled with all the perks and had PTV's.
I was also aware of the A321 seeming to have a bit more clout thrust wise as we took off. All in all it's hard to pick a favourite, but probably the 757 as it's the first modern era, glass cockpit type jet I've witnessed.
By: - 7th August 2003 at 15:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Again, much as I prefer the A320's cabin cross section to the 707/727/737/757 one, the 757-200 wipes teh floor with the A321.
Ren, more thrust in the Airbus? you're joking right? You're talking about comparing an aircraft with slightly souped up 737 engines, and one with 747 engines. When the 757 revs up, you know you're moving, it's the whole exhilaration of flying, with the Airbus you just don't... get the same adrenaline rush when she sets out.
Sure, you all know my affection for the RB211's, but even so...
Admittedly, I've only flown on the one 321 (Swissair ZRH-LHR two years ago), and numerous 757's (at least a dozen BA examples on GLA-LHR flights over the last 18 years, plus a US example PIT-SFO and a UA one SFO-EWR six years ago), but, in my mind, there's no comparison between the two.
By: - 7th August 2003 at 15:41 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have to say the adrenaline rush was surprisingly noticeable on the A321, perhaps the slightly smaller size makes the difference.
Our heads were firmly pushed into the seatbacks, mibbe the crew were giving it a bit "extra". :D It was BMI plane.
By: - 7th August 2003 at 15:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I always felt that an a 320 was "pushing" much stronger than the other types. Just personal feelings maybe ...
By: - 7th August 2003 at 19:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Airbus's generally get a fairly bad rap when it comes to performance. I think the smaller ones tend to be quite good at initially getting off the ground but once they get above FL200 the climb rate drops off phenomenally compared to the Boeings.
By: - 8th August 2003 at 07:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Ask any front seat driver which is the best between Airbus and Boeing. BOEING any day........
If it ain't BOEING it ain't going.
They don't call it the SCAREBUS for nothing.:) :) :) :) :D
By: - 8th August 2003 at 09:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...except for that bl00dy control column getting in the way!
By: - 8th August 2003 at 09:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I choose Boeing over Airbus anyday. It would seem from 2 experts within the industry that generally, Boeing perform better and for sheer looks as well... need I say more? :D
By: - 8th August 2003 at 10:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
757 anyday!:D
By: - 8th August 2003 at 11:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Got to be the 757 although ive never been on an A321 but I have been on an A320 and the 757 is nicer to fly on in my view. Plus i love watching 757s taking off as they climb so well.
By: - 8th August 2003 at 23:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Why its the A321 of course! Gets it on looks alone and thats without the technology and design being light years beyond the Boeing product.
By: - 9th August 2003 at 13:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The bean counters love the seat/mile costs of the A321 for charter work, however we are told that, as the B757 is not flavour of the month any more, the leasing rates are very low, which still makes them very economic to operate.
By: - 9th August 2003 at 15:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Matt - you can't say 'performance aside' and then debate about one being overpowered! There is an aviation saying 'power = performance'!
The 757 may be over performing at low levels but it is this extra thrust which makes it perform at the higher levels where the Airbus doesn't. There's more to the power question than just getting the thing off the ground. You could even argue that technically the Airbus doesn't comply with the required 500' per minute minimum climb/descent gradient in the airways when being operated as all operators use them today. If that was enforced most Airbus's would be restricted down in the mid/high FL200's until they had burnt off a lot of fuel! This same rule has long since been overlooked because of similar performance in aircraft such as the TriStar and most turboprops.
By: - 9th August 2003 at 18:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Being an airline beancounter, the cost of ownership for a B757 is very low due to the age, with an A321 being much more costly with higher monthly lease rates.......however, the A321 weighs substantially lease in terms of MTOW (maximum take-off weight) to a B757, so is cheaper in landing and navigation costs.
By: - 10th August 2003 at 03:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Boeing always
By: - 10th August 2003 at 09:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Winsflap2 - B757 may be heavier than the A321, but the majority of our fleet are "declared" (for Eurocontrol purposes) at a Max TOW about 10 tonnes less than max structural TOW - they fall into a cheaper charging group.
By: - 10th August 2003 at 11:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
How can you compare the c/*p A321 with a B757. The A321 struggles to make it back from the greek Islands and the Canaries. How many A321's operate ETOPS flights?
By: - 10th August 2003 at 17:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As Moondance says, in my company we have 757's declared at 102,000kg, 105,600kg and 113,398kg for take off because of euronav charges.
Posts: 920
By: Pembo330 - 7th August 2003 at 10:46
Generally speaking, I am a big Airbus fan and believe many of their aircraft are superior to their Boeing equivalents.
However, there is one exception to this IMO - and that is the B757. The A321 looks like exactly what it is, a stretched A320, whilst the B757 still looks like a great airline in its own right - its unique.
I've never flown the A321 so I can't compare cabins or flying experiences but from a pure aesthetic point of view, I prefer the look of the 757. If the production line of this aircraft does stop (which seems likely now), I for one will be disappointed.
How do your experiences/views of the A321/757 compare with these? Whats the A321 like inside?
Views anyone?:)